Hello shire,
Thursday, February 12, 2009, 8:02:06 PM, you wrote:
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
The following remain open and it does not seem someone is actively
working in it:
- PHP_5_3 missed merge from PHP_5_2 for write_func callback
Seeing as I have an interest in this getting in 5_3, I'll
-Original Message-
From: shire [mailto:sh...@tekrat.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 11:02 AM
To: Lukas Kahwe Smith
Cc: PHP Internals List
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] 5.3 todos
Seeing as I have an interest in this getting in 5_3, I'll work up a
patch for
this unless someone
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 00:08, Andi Gutmans a...@zend.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: shire [mailto:sh...@tekrat.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 11:02 AM
To: Lukas Kahwe Smith
Cc: PHP Internals List
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] 5.3 todos
Seeing as I have an interest
-Original Message-
From: Hannes Magnusson [mailto:hannes.magnus...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 6:04 PM
To: Andi Gutmans
Cc: shire; Lukas Kahwe Smith; PHP Internals List
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] 5.3 todos
And you are?
CTO of some company? Claiming you wrote PHP
Hi Lukas!
Just wanted to send a quick message about some things I'll try to do. :-)
Guess I'm a little late to return, heh -- and I'm finishing a new system
build now and have to migrate stuff over :-/, but I'll get to these PHP
things soon as I can, on whatever system...
- Original Message
Hi Dan,
Because the guide is in the manual. The manual is the difinitive source
on how to use PHP.
The guide was only added directly into the manual quite recently. This is
exactly what I'm trying to say; its purpose has shifted since it became part
of the manual and it's lost whatever
BUT perhaps some of the more complex explanations should have their own
document. If it 'requires more explanation than we want to provide in
the documentation' that does seem to suggest that a development perhaps
DOES need better doumentation?
In the manual, really. But - quite.
- Steph
Hi Steph:
It's nothing to do with structure. Everything makes for a very long
file, full stop.
It doesn't matter that the XML file is long. Each section is broken up
into a separate page in the manual.
You want the upgrade guide to contain just the things that will cause
difficulties
It doesn't matter that the XML file is long. Each section is broken up
into a separate page in the manual.
I'm talking about the UPGRADE file in the source, which is plain text.
Have you ever tried to read it?
- Steph
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe,
Hi all,
A while back I published a patch for PHP 5.2 and SNMP. Anyone had time
to review it
and if so, any comments? Could this patch be considered as a PHP 5.3 TODO item?
Anything I need to do to accept the patch?
Thanks.
--
Best Regards,
Leon
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime
Hi Steph:
I'm talking about the UPGRADE file in the source, which is plain text.
AH! Pardon the misunderstanding. Yeah, it seems that file should be
short and sweet then point folks to the manual.
Thanks,
--Dan
--
T H E A N A L Y S I S A N D S O L U T I O N S C O M P A N Y
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
The following remain open and it does not seem someone is actively
working in it:
- PHP_5_3 missed merge from PHP_5_2 for write_func callback
Seeing as I have an interest in this getting in 5_3, I'll work up a patch for
this unless someone wants to speak up that
Hi,
On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 18:07 +0100, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
- pcntl_signal needs declare(ticks) which is deprecated since 5.3
I marked this as a documentation issue. This has been discussed when it
was decided to deprecate ticks. Although it would be great to keep
ticks, at least for use
On 12.02.2009, at 21:59, Arnaud Le Blanc wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 18:07 +0100, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
- pcntl_signal needs declare(ticks) which is deprecated since 5.3
I marked this as a documentation issue. This has been discussed when
it
was decided to deprecate ticks. Although
Hi,
It seems aside from some smaller commits, the last minute closure
change has gone through without issues.
Our todo list however doesnt have that many checked off items:
http://wiki.php.net/todo/php53#next_release_beta2rc1
To me the biggest issue is the UPGRADING README. So please
: [PHP-DEV] 5.3 todos
Hi,
It seems aside from some smaller commits, the last minute closure
change has gone through without issues.
Our todo list however doesnt have that many checked off items:
http://wiki.php.net/todo/php53#next_release_beta2rc1
To me the biggest issue is the UPGRADING README
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 20:02, Steph Fox st...@php.net wrote:
In the last two upgrading guides, we've repeated much of what is already in
the NEWS file or in the release notes. This makes me wonder what the point
is of having an upgrading guide...?
Think about the online manual. In 2 years
Hi Hannes,
Think about the online manual. In 2 years from now people should still
be able to read the upgrading guide and it should still make sense
without needing to hunt down random release announcements or outdated
NEWS files.
The upgrade which gets committed to php-src will be taken, word
But this was actually an add-on after I put the initial 5.1 upgrading
guide
together. A 200-line document became a 500-line document overnight, and
voila - nobody reads the thing.
Actually I'm wrong - that was 5.2. The 5.1 upgrade guide appears to be
as-was.
So again, why are we listing
IMHO listing new functions is useful - there could be a name collision with
a function in users code (I know it is improbable, because the functions are
named extname_funcname, but still possible)
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Steph Fox st...@php.net wrote:
But this was actually an add-on
IMHO listing new functions is useful - there could be a name collision
with
a function in users code (I know it is improbable, because the functions
are
named extname_funcname, but still possible)
Improbable indeed. The nearest we ever came to that was with the Date class
(because PEAR
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Steph Fox st...@php.net wrote:
IMHO listing new functions is useful - there could be a name collision
with
a function in users code (I know it is improbable, because the functions
are
named extname_funcname, but still possible)
Improbable indeed. The nearest
An upgrade is not only about problems, it is also about solutions.
You need a problem before providing a solution. Really.
A
kind of tutorial on how to use all the changes in a given release in
your applications. It often helps to clean codes, remove work 'round,
etc. An upgrade guide is
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 20:55, Steph Fox st...@php.net wrote:
Please go back to the original discussion about the purpose of this guide.
It was aimed primarily at sysadmins. If we turn it into a prettier version
Then I guess I need to read the archives.
I can't imagine why a system admin would
Hey Steph,
Personally I think we should list all changes. For certain changes we
should devote some explanations (like E_DEPRECATED). For the most part
I see this document as a place where we provide an overview of things
which then gives them the right key word to look in the
Hi Steph:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 07:02:35PM -, Steph Fox wrote:
In the last two upgrading guides, we've repeated much of what is already
in the NEWS file or in the release notes. This makes me wonder what the
point is of having an upgrading guide...?
Because the guide is in the
26 matches
Mail list logo
